Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

10
  • 16
    Two men marrying doesn't affect me or bother me. People identifying as what/whomever they please doesn't bother me. Having to mind my choice of words actively at every instant does affect me, and bother me. I have no problems writing in a neutral 'they', though I might slip up at times. But when having to proactively write the words some stranger on the internet tells me to, under threat of.being banned, a line is crossed.
    – user630245
    Commented Oct 20, 2019 at 2:56
  • 12
    As for the last paragraph: The phrase "The good news is that in a decade or so most people will look back on this as an unenlightened, transphobic time." Shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the objections many, many users have voiced here, that have nothing to do with the trans (or lavender) community.
    – user630245
    Commented Oct 20, 2019 at 3:02
  • 1
    @Inactive-avoidingCoC so how about being required by a married woman to use the title "Mrs"? Even if she is married to a woman.
    – user
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 9:41
  • 5
    Do you mean someone asking me, respectfully and in good faith, to use a title? Sure, no problem. Someone demanding it? Much less likely.
    – user630245
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 10:02
  • 1
    Also, how do I ping you?
    – user630245
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 10:03
  • 11
    But do you understand what I'm trying to convey in my second comment? Many, if not most, of the objections have absolutely nothing to do with transphobia, and have collectively gathered thousands upon thousands of upvotes. Waving this whole debate away as 'transphobia' completely denies these objections and upvotes.
    – user630245
    Commented Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07
  • 1
    @Inactive-avoidingCoC So your objection is that SE didn't ask nicely and instead made it a rule, and because it's a rule have to have mis-gender people as some bizarre kind of protest.
    – user
    Commented Oct 22, 2019 at 11:49
  • 6
    Indeed I object that this rule has been imposed without consulting anyone, neither the general user base nor the group of users it pretends to protect (in practice it seems to do the opposite, but that's another discussion). I've maid no claims about having or wanting to misgender people; you're putting words in my mouth. In fact in the comments above I've already made clear that I don't have any qualms about using gender-neutral language.
    – user630245
    Commented Nov 12, 2019 at 18:51
  • 11
    On that note; I would kindly suggest that you make an effort to understand the objections that a very large group of users have, in stead of immediately dismissing them (and me) as misgendering bigots (which most of them are not).
    – user630245
    Commented Nov 12, 2019 at 18:53
  • 5
    Atrocious anti-logic in this "answer". @Inactive-ObjectingExtremism is correct. It's far too easy to rush all the way to the "bigot" (and similar) labels. And it's for the reasons that "racist" is commonly used, because it's nearly impossible to make the statement "I'm not a bigot" without sounding like one. Just because being a bigot often means that you don't realize you're a bigot doesn't mean that denying bigotry defines bigotry.
    – tgm1024--Monica was mistreated
    Commented Nov 23, 2019 at 22:24